Actually, that's something you've done for yourself...a right provided by our country.

Oops! Thanks for catching that. I have changed the post.

Canadian SAS?

Can we try to keep this thread out of OMNI? :rolleyes:



Back on track...

I guarantee you this exchange would have been much different if one of the proposed Pistole Packin' Screeners was in the place of the HPD.

Is there a legal limit to the amount of time you can be detained without being arrested? At what point can you force the cop to either let you go, or arrest you (for something pertaining to the reason why you were detained).

I assume if they arrest you for disorderly conduct or some other trumped-up nonsense because you were asserting your rights, you have good grounds to sue the cop, their department and jurisdiction.

First of all, it's not a right provided by the country. It's an inherent right protected against infringement by the government. The government is not the source of rights in America.

However, you may be right about this -- it's something I've done for myself. Are you suggesting that only those who have served have the right to an opinion as to when and where the military should be deployed?

We will have differing opinions on what is patriotic and they won't be settled here (or even in Omni/PR).

In my time in the military, thankfully no large conflicts occurred. On the other hand, my brother-in-law has been in harm's way as a Marine Corps officer for too many of his 20+ years in the service. But none of the members of our family who were in the military consider us more patriotic than any other person that loves our country.

I don't consider myself a patriot in the least for what happened. To quote Curly in "Disorder in the Court", "I'm a victim of circumstance." :)

I was wondering . . . :D

You have to define the term "arrest" first. Charge you? Take you to the station? Tell you why you're being detained? Detain you beyond a certain period? What?

:D Your viewpoint has a track record.;)

There is no such outfit. I have dual citizenship - Canadian and UK - as does my brother. He chose to serve with the British SAS.

Actually, the Bill of Rights were provided:

–verb (used with object)
1. to make available; furnish: to provide employees with various benefits.
2. to supply or equip: to provide the army with new fighter planes.
3. to afford or yield.
4. Law . to arrange for or stipulate beforehand, as by a provision or proviso.
5. Archaic . to prepare or procure beforehand.

I'll start again. The Bill of Rights, including the right you mentioned, were made available to us by our forefathers.The reason it is provided by the country is because it is more about the U.S. than the individual. They were created to keep our country from depriving us of of life, liberty, property, and all that jazz. So yes, they are the source of the first amendment that you mistook as exercising for the good of the country instead of yourself earlier.

Is there a reason why you asked me that last question? Is there anything I wrote to give you that impression? I would like you to tell me when I "suggested" such a thing.

Sorry, but you still have it wrong (and the answer isn't found in a dictionary). The reason the U.S. is called, "The Great Experiment," is because, per the Declaration of Independence, this nation was founded on the theory that all rights are inherent and inalienable, rather than being dispensed by the sovereign as was the case in, for example, England at the time (and, no, this is not the time nor place to debate the Magna Carta). In order for government to operate, at the time of formation, through the process of ratification (and subsequently through amendment), the people ceded to the government limited powers to infringe or otherwise affect these inherent and otherwise inalienable rights. The Bill of Rights is not a conferral of rights by the government, the founding fathers, or anyone or anything else. Rather, it is a codification of express limitations on the power of government to impinge and/or infringe upon these rights.

So your statement, as well as your dictionary definition, remains fundamentally (and rather egregiously) incorrect. These rights were not "made available" by anyone but, instead, are inherent as a result of our being human, i.e. "endowed by our creator." What I've described here, by the way, is not an "interpretation" or "theory" that is subject to debate -- this is settled history and taught in high school civics classes in the U.S.

Dead wrong. Not even remotely close. Rights in this country are individual, personal, inherent and inalienable. The government is allowed to infringe them only to least extent necessary to govern as specified in the Constitution.

Once again, they were not, "created," but are part and parcel of having been born a human being (that's the "inherent" part) and they cannot be taken away, altered or infringed by the government (that's the "inalienable" part) except to the limited extent necessary for government to function. The 5th Amendment doesn't prevent the government from depriving us of life, liberty and property (and all that jazz) because there are instances when it is necessary to do so for the functioning of government, e.g. waging war, punishment of crime in the interest of the social good, taxation to pay for government, etc. In other words, the inherent and inalienable rights of life, liberty and property ownership are not absolute. For that reason, the 5th Amendment provides that the government cannot infringe on these rights without due process of law.

And, as I have explained, your understanding of both the First Amendment and the source of the rights identified therein, is 100% wrong. Moreover, if you understood, at all, the constitutional jurisprudence that underlies the First Amendment, you would understand that the primary form of speech that is protected from government infringement by the First Amendment, so-called "core value speech," is "political speech," i.e. that speech that contributes to the political debate which is a subset of the marketplace of ideas. You will note, too, that protection of political speech appears within the very first limitation placed on the exercise of government power. That is indicative of the importance the founders placed on political speech. Accordingly, though secured against government infringement as an inherent and inalienable right, political speech is therefore critical to the survival of the constitutional republic and, as such, engaging in political speech is as much an obligation of all Americans as any other contribution to the political fabric.

Yes. I wanted to know your answer.

Given your blatant misrepresentation of the source of rights in America, one that went to the very core of the theory of American government as well as the obligations of citizenship, I was curious as to exactly what you were suggesting. I still am, as your conception of the purpose and function of the Constitution is so far off the mark that I really don't understand what point you were trying to make.

^

Good post, well said. (Whole post is good. I excerpted to save space.)

I have to be charged with something to be arrested - I can't just be placed under arrest for no reason. I can be detained while the police either determine if they have reason to arrest me, but if not, they must let me go.

So - the question is, how long can I legally be detained without being arrested, after which point I can just say "if I'm not under arrest, I'm leaving - see ya".

PTravel, this is an excellent post^^^